Printer Friendly

Vance v. Barrett.

U.S. Appeals Court

INMATE FUNDS

DISPOSITION OF FUNDS

INTEREST

Vance v. Barrett, 345 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). Two state prisoners brought separate [section] 1983 actions, alleging that prison officials violated their constitutional rights by conditioning prison employment on the waiver of their property rights to money in their prison trust accounts, and retaliated against them for refusing to waive such rights. The district court dismissed the actions and prisoners appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. On remand, the suits were consolidated and the court granted summary judgment to the officials on the grounds of qualified immunity. The prisoners again appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appeals court held that deductions taken from the prisoners' trust fund accounts for charges relating to costs incurred in creating and maintaining such accounts did not constitute a taking without just compensation, absent a showing that the charges were unreasonable or were unrelated to the administration of the accounts. The court held that confiscation of accrued interest from the trust accounts violated the prisoners' due process rights, because a state law provided that the prisoners were entitled to receive accrued interest and prison administrators provided no procedure by which prisoners could contest the deprivation. The court found that officials were entitled to qualified immunity in the prisoners' claim that their prison employment was conditioned upon their willingness to give up their procedural due process rights. But the court denied qualified immunity to the officials for the prisoners' claim that they unconstitutionally retaliated against the prisoners for their refusal to waive their procedural due process rights. (Nevada Department of Prisons)
COPYRIGHT 2003 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:PROPERTY-PRISONER PERSONAL
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U8NV
Date:Aug 1, 2003
Words:275
Previous Article:Hatfield v. Scott.
Next Article:Doan v. I.N.S.
Topics:


Related Articles
U.S. Appeals Court: INTEREST INMATE FUNDS.
U.S. District Court: PRIVILEGED CORRES.
Koger v. Snyder.
Koger v. Snyder.
Koger v. Snyder.
Koger v. Snyder.
Vance v. Barrett.
Vance v. Barrett.
Sutton v. Rasheed.
Vance v. Barrett.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters